Category: Business

The offers and details on this page may have updated or changed since the time of publication. See our article on Business Insider for current information.

• Harvard professor Arthur Brooks emphasized curbing bad spending habits for financial happiness.
• Brooks noted that rising credit card debt is affecting the financial well-being of many Americans.
• Mindful spending and investing in long-term assets are key to overcoming financial stress.

Bestselling author and Harvard professor Arthur Brooks believes that achieving financial happiness isn't solved by chasing extra income but by curbing bad spending habits.

Brooks, a professor of the practice of public and nonprofit leadership at the Harvard Kennedy School and professor of management practice at the Harvard Business School, was a guest on the financial news and education site TheStreet on May 27 to discuss the science of balancing wealth with emotional well-being.

The author of 11 books said overcoming financial stress hinges on tackling lifestyle creep — such as living above your means or using things like raises to elevate your lifestyle instead of building your savings — and poor money management. Brooks also pointed out that the recent surge in credit card debt highlights the pitfalls of borrowing for consumption, which he called detrimental to financial well-being.

"The biggest source of stress that people make is, is not that there's not enough money, but they make mistakes with their money," Brooks said on TheStreet.

Borrowing for consumption is the most damaging financial habit

Brooks pointed to the recent rise in credit card debt as a factor that affects many people's financial happiness.

"The No. 1 mistake that people make is that they borrow money for consumption," Brooks said, adding that people should never borrow money to consume. "The No. 1 predictor of how your finances can drive down your happiness is borrowing for your own consumption."

Credit card debt has become a crisis in the US following the pandemic when many Americans used up their savings.

Data collected by JPMorgan Chase shows that credit card delinquencies have soared since 2022, surpassing mortgages as the most common form of default.

Brooks called borrowing for consumption the opposite of progress toward financial well-being, which can to financial happiness.

Alternatively, he noted that mortgages and student loans can be considered debt that leads to progress and happiness since both can be investments in the future. However, people should avoid taking out student loans to attend a more expensive school just because they can get loans to pay for it, he said.

To be sure, Brooks acknowledges that sometimes people need to use credit for consumption, such as buying groceries if they don't have enough money.

More income can cause bigger problems

To be sure, inflation has not helped people limit their spending and avoid lifestyle creep in the last couple of years as the prices of necessities like groceries and medical care have increased.

But, according to Brooks, the solution isn't making more money: for some, the boost in earnings can damage personal finances through lifestyle creep.

Brooks pointed to the example of somebody passing up a car they can afford and buying one twice as expensive because it's nicer.

"Think about the normal sources of avoidable stress that people have is that they want to consume, they want to buy something," Brooks said. "They want some stuff in their life and they don't have the means to pay for it yet. So they go into debt for it."

You can see the entire interview here:

Have you experienced lifestyle creep in the last four years and are willing to talk about how you managed or overcame it? Reach out to this reporter at cgaines@businessinsider.com.

• Mary Dacus, 69, struggles to afford basic necessities with only Social Security income.
• Inflation and limited income have forced Dacus and her husband to drain their savings.
• Older adults like Dacus face financial vulnerability, with many lacking sufficient retirement savings.

Mary Dacus, 69, doesn't have a savings account anymore.

She lives with her husband Stephen, 67, and their two dogs in Robinson, Illinois. They find it difficult to make ends meet, and Dacus often worries about paying for groceries and healthcare.

A few years ago, Dacus said she could afford "wants," like an item at the thrift store, and she and Stephen could travel on the weekends. They even had some savings for retirement.

But, with inflation and an increasingly limited income, she said they now struggle to afford basic necessities.

Social Security is the couple's only source of income. Dacus receives $854 a month, and her husband receives $1,286 a month, according to documents reviewed by Business Insider. Additionally, her household qualifies for $23 a month in SNAP benefits to buy food.

"If we worked a 40-hour week from Monday through Friday with my income, it would come out to like $2 an hour," she said, comparing her Social Security income to a full-time work salary. "They're paying $12 an hour or something over at McDonald's."

Dacus is one of the millions of Americans who are living paycheck to paycheck. Her income places her above the federal poverty line, but her household income still isn't enough to make ends meet. Like ALICEs — people who are asset-limited, income-constrained, and employed — Dacus doesn't qualify for most forms of government assistance.

Older adults are especially financially vulnerable, and many boomers worry they won't have enough money to cover living expenses in retirement.

Fifty-two percent of boomers have $250,000 or less in retirement assets, per an April report from the Retirement Income Institute, the retirement-focused research arm of the Alliance for Lifetime Income. What's more, the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey found that more than half of Americans over 65 have an annual income of $30,000 or less.

And, if lawmakers don't intervene, the US Social Security fund is expected to dry out by the late 2030s.

"It scares us to death because we'll still be here, God-willing," Dacus said. "How are we to survive?"

With no savings and credit card debt, Dacus struggles to make ends meet

Last fall, the couple moved to Robinson from Blytheville, Arkansas. They wanted to be closer to Dacus' brother and were able to buy a house for less than $50,000 using settlement money from a lawsuit. She isn't sure they would be able to afford stable housing if they had to pay rent.

Dacus said she never has "any extra money" anymore. The couple has nearly $10,000 in credit card debt and had to drain their savings account to afford housing, groceries, and healthcare.

Sometimes, Dacus has to request an advance on her Social Security check to buy food because her SNAP benefits aren't enough.

To make sure she and Stephen have enough to eat, Dacus depends on food banks. She has been turned away before for having the wrong ZIP code — food banks typically manage demand by only serving households with specific addresses — but Dacus said the nearest food bank to her is across town.

Dacus is anxious about affording her car, utility, and cellphone bills. Unless they have a required vaccination, she can't take her dogs to the vet. She and her husband rarely celebrate Christmas and anniversaries because they can't afford gifts.

"It's a struggle," she said. "Even our change container only has about $1.50."

Most of the couple's prescriptions and basic medical bills are covered by Medicare, but they don't have Medicaid, meaning their insurance doesn't cover long-term care or other non-emergency medical expenses. And, a few weeks ago, Stephen received a cancer diagnosis. They aren't sure yet what kind of treatment he will need, but Dacus said if insurance won't cover it, it could be financially "catastrophic."

She wishes there were more resources for older adults. Dacus has tried to apply for government assistance besides SNAP, but her options are limited. She said it's especially difficult to get help when you don't have children or if you live in a rural area.

"A lot of people think that, with Social Security, you get this big check, and you can move to Florida, and you could buy a boat and go fishing," said said. "That's not what it is."

Are you an older adult struggling to make ends meet? Are you open to sharing your story? If so, reach out to this reporter at allisonkelly@businessinsider.com.

For technology to change the global balance of power, it needn't be new. It must simply be known.

Since 2017, the Chinese Communist Party has laid out careful plans to eventually dominate the creation, application, and dissemination of generative artificial intelligence — programs that use massive datasets to train themselves to recognize patterns so quickly that they appear to produce knowledge from nowhere. According to the CCP's plan, by 2020, China was supposed to have "achieved iconic advances in AI models and methods, core devices, high-end equipment, and foundational software." But the release of OpenAI's ChatGPT in fall 2022 caught Beijing flat-footed. The virality of ChatGPT's launch asserted that US companies — at least for the moment — were leading the AI race and threw a great-power competition that had been conducted in private into the open for all the world to see.

There is no guarantee that America's AI lead will last forever. China's national tech champions have joined the fray and managed to twist a technology that feeds on freewheeling information to fit neatly into China's constrained information bubble. Censorship requirements may slow China's AI development and limit the commercialization of domestic models, but they will not stop Beijing from benefiting from AI where it sees fit. China's leader, Xi Jinping, sees technology as the key to shaking his country out of its economic malaise. And even if China doesn't beat the US in the AI race, there's still great power, and likely danger, in it taking second place.

"There's so much we can do with this technology. Beijing's just not encouraging consumer-facing interactions," Reva Goujon, a director for client engagement on the consulting firm Rhodium Group's China advisory team, said. "Real innovation is happening in China. We're not seeing a huge gap between the models Chinese companies have been able to roll out. It's not like all these tech innovators have disappeared. They're just channeling applications to hard science."

In its internal documents, the CCP says that it will use AI to shape reality and tighten its grip on power within its borders — for political repression, surveillance, and monitoring dissent. We know that the party will also use AI to drive breakthroughs in industrial engineering, biotechnology, and other fields the CCP considers productive. In some of these use cases, it has already seen success. So even if it lags behind US tech by a few years, it can still have a powerful geopolitical impact. There are many like-minded leaders who also want to use the tools of the future to cement their authority in the present and distort the past. Beijing will be more than happy to facilitate that for them. China's vision for the future of AI is closed-sourced, tightly controlled, and available for export all around the world.

In the world of modern AI, the technology is only as good as what it eats. ChatGPT and other large language models gorge on scores of web pages, news articles, and books. Sometimes this information gives the LLMs food poisoning — anyone who has played with a chatbot knows they sometimes hallucinate or tell lies. Given the size of the tech's appetite, figuring out what went wrong is much more complex than narrowing down the exact ingredient in your dinner that had you hugging your toilet at 2 a.m. AI datasets are so vast, and the calculations so fast, that the companies controlling the models do not know why they spit out bad results, and they may never know. In a society like China — where information is tightly controlled — this inability to understand the guts of the models poses an existential problem for the CCP's grip on power: A chatbot could tell an uncomfortable truth, and no one will know why. The likelihood of that happening depends on the model it's trained on. To prevent this, Beijing is feeding AI with information that encourages positive "social construction."

China's State Council wrote in its 2017 Next Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan that AI would be able to "grasp group cognition and psychological changes in a timely manner," which, in turn, means the tech could "significantly elevate the capability and level of social governance, playing an irreplaceable role in effectively maintaining social stability." That is to say, if built to the correct specifications, the CCP believes AI can be a tool to fortify its power. That is why this month, the Cyberspace Administration of China, the country's AI regulator, launched a chatbot trained entirely on Xi's political and economic philosophy, "Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era" (snappy name, I know). Perhaps it goes without saying that ChatGPT is not available for use in China or Hong Kong.

For the CCP, finding a new means of mass surveillance and information domination couldn't come at a better time. Consider the Chinese economy. Wall Street, Washington, Brussels, and Berlin have accepted that the model that helped China grow into the world's second-largest economy has been worn out and that Beijing has yet to find anything to replace it. Building out infrastructure and industrial capacity no longer provides the same bang for the CCP's buck. The world is pushing back against China's exports, and the CCP's attempts to drive growth through domestic consumption have gone pretty much nowhere. The property market is distorted beyond recognition, growth has plateaued, and deflation is lingering like a troubled ghost. According to Freedom House, a human-rights monitor, Chinese people demonstrated against government policies in record numbers during the fourth quarter of 2023. The organization logged 952 dissent events, a 50% increase from the previous quarter. Seventy-eight percent of the demonstrations involved economic issues, such as housing or labor. If there's a better way to control people, Xi needs it now.

Ask the Cyberspace Administration of China's chatbot about these economic stumbles, and you'll just get a lecture on the difference between "traditional productive forces" and "new productive forces" — buzzwords the CCP uses to blunt the trauma of China's diminished economic prospects. In fact, if you ask any chatbot operating in the country, it will tell you that Taiwan is a part of China (a controversial topic outside the country, to say the least). All chatbots collect information on the people who use them and the questions they ask. The CCP's elites will be able to use that information gathering and spreading to their advantage politically and economically — but the government doesn't plan to share that power with regular Chinese people. What the party sees will not be what the people see.

"The Chinese have great access to information around the world," Kenneth DeWoskin, a professor emeritus at the University of Michigan and senior China advisor to Deloitte, told me. "But it's always been a two-tiered information system. It has been for 2,000 years."

To ensure this, the CCP has constructed a system to regulate AI that is both flexible enough to evaluate large language models as they are created and draconian enough to control their outputs. Any AI disseminated for public consumption must be registered and approved by the CAC. Registration involves telling the administration things like which datasets the AI was trained on and what tests were run on it. The point is to set up controls that embrace some aspects of AI, while — at least ideally — giving the CCP final approval on what it can and cannot create.

"The real challenge of LLMs is that they are really the synthesis of two things," Matt Sheehan, a researcher and fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told me. "They might be at the forefront of productivity growth, but they're also fundamentally a content-based system, taking content and spitting out content. And that's something the CCP considers frivolous."

In the past few years, the party has shown that it can be ruthless in cutting out technology it considers "frivolous" or harmful to social cohesion. In 2021, it barred anyone under 18 from playing video games on the weekdays, paused the approval of new games for eight months, and then in 2023 announced rules to reduce the public's spending on video games.

But AI is not simply entertainment — it's part of the future of computation. The CCP cannot deny the virality of what OpenAI's chatbot was able to achieve, its power in the US-China tech competition, or the potential for LLMs to boost economic growth and political power through lightning-speed information synthesis.

Ultimately, as Sheehan put it, the question is: "Can they sort of lobotomize AI and LLMs to make the information part a nonfactor?"

Unclear, but they're sure as hell going to try.

For the CCP to actually have a powerful AI to control, the country needs to develop models that suit its purpose — and it's clear that China's tech giants are playing catch-up.

The e-commerce giant Baidu claims that its chatbot, Ernie Bot — which was released to the public in August — has 200 million users and 85,000 enterprise clients. To put that in perspective, OpenAI generated 1.86 billion visits in March alone. There's also the Kimi chatbot from Moonshot AI, a startup backed by Alibaba that launched in October. But both Ernie Bot and Kimi were only recently overshadowed by ByteDance's Doubao bot, which also launched in August. According to Bloomberg, it's now the most downloaded bot in the country, and it's obvious why — Doubao is cheaper than its competitors.

"The generative-AI industry is still in its early stages in China," Paul Triolo, a partner for China and technology policy at the consultancy Albright Stonebridge Group, said. "So you have this cycle where you invest in infrastructure, train, and tweak models, get feedback, then you make an app that makes money. Chinese companies are now in the training and tweaking models phase."

The question is which of these companies will actually make it to the moneymaking phase. The current price war is a race to the bottom, similar to what we've seen in the Chinese technology space before. Take the race to make electric vehicles: The Chinese government started by handing out cash to any company that could produce a design — and I mean any. It was a money orgy. Some of these cars never made it out of the blueprint stage. But slowly, the government stopped subsidizing design, then production. Then instead, it started to support the end consumer. Companies that couldn't actually make a car at a price point that consumers were willing to pay started dropping like flies. Eventually, a few companies started dominating the space, and now the Chinese EV industry is a manufacturing juggernaut.

The generative-AI industry is still in its early stages in China.

Similar top-down strategies, like China's plan to advance semiconductor production, haven't been nearly as successful. Historically, DeWoskin told me, party-issued production mandates have "good and bad effects." They have the ability to get universities and the private sector in on what the state wants to do, but sometimes these actors move slower than the market. Up until 2022, everyone in the AI competition was most concerned about the size of models, but the sector is now moving toward innovation in the effectiveness of data training and generative capacity. In other words, sometimes the CCP isn't skating to where the puck's going to be but to where it is.

There are also signs that the definition of success is changing to include models with very specific purposes. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said in a recent interview with the Brookings Institution that, for now, the models in most need of regulatory overhead are the largest ones. "But," he added, "I think progress may surprise us, and you can imagine smaller models that can do impactful things." A targeted model can have a specific business use case. After spending decades analyzing how the CCP molds the Chinese economy, DeWoskin told me that he could envision a world where some of those targeted models were available to domestic companies operating in China but not to their foreign rivals. After all, Beijing has never been shy about using a home-field advantage. Just ask Elon Musk.

To win the competition to build the most powerful AI in the world, China must combat not only the US but also its own instincts when it comes to technological innovation. A race to the bottom may simply beggar China's AI ecosystem. A rush to catch up to where the US already is — amid investor and government pressure to make money as soon as possible — may keep China's companies off the frontier of this tech.

"My base case for the way this goes forward is that maybe two Chinese entities push the frontier, and they get all the government support," Sheehan said. "But they're also burdened with dealing with the CCP and a little slower-moving."

This isn't to say we have nothing to learn from the way China is handling AI. Beijing has already set regulations for things like deepfakes and labeling around authenticity. Most importantly, China's system holds people accountable for what AI does — people make the technology, and people should have to answer for what it does. The speed of AI's development demands a dynamic, consistent regulatory system, and while China's checks go too far, the current US regulatory framework lacks systemization. The Commerce Department announced an initiative last month around testing models for safety, and that's a good start, but it's not nearly enough.

The digital curtain AI can build in our imaginations will be much more impenetrable than iron, making it impossible for societies to cooperate in a shared future.

If China has taught us anything about technology, it's that it doesn't have to make society freer — it's all about the will of the people who wield it. The Xi Jinping Thought chatbot is a warning. If China can make one for itself, it can use that base model to craft similar systems for authoritarians who want to limit the information scape in their societies. Already, some Chinese AI companies — like the state-owned iFlytek, a voice-recognition AI — have been hit with US sanctions, in part, for using their technology to spy on the Uyghur population in Xinjiang. For some governments, it won't matter if tech this useful is two or three generations behind a US counterpart. As for the chatbots, the models won't contain the sum total of human knowledge, but they will serve their purpose: The content will be censored, and the checks back to the CCP will clear.

That is the danger of the AI race. Maybe China won't draw from the massive, multifaceted AI datasets that the West will — its strict limits on what can go into and come out of these models will prevent that. Maybe China won't be pushing the cutting edge of what AI can achieve. But that doesn't mean Beijing can't foster the creation of specific models that could lead to advancements in fields like hard sciences and engineering. It can then control who gets access to those advancements within its borders, not just people but also multinational corporations. It can sell tools of control, surveillance, and content generation to regimes that wish to dominate their societies and are antagonistic to the US and its allies.

This is an inflection point in the global information war. If social media harmfully siloed people into alternate universes, the Xi bot has demonstrated that AI can do that on steroids. It is a warning. The digital curtain AI can build in our imaginations will be much more impenetrable than iron, making it impossible for societies to cooperate in a shared future. Beijing is well aware of this, and it's already harnessing that power domestically, why not geopolitically? We need to think about all the ways Beijing can profit from AI now before its machines are turned on the world. Stability and reality depend on it.

Linette Lopez is a senior correspondent at Business Insider.

• I recently flew back-to-back on American Airlines and Delta Air Lines in domestic economy.
• Delta has better WiFi options, but I prefer the in-flight entertainment set-up on American.
• Neither is a dealbreaker. My future bookings will likely be based on price and convenience.

There were few flight options out of the tiny Tallassee, Florida, regional airport I lived near growing up, but my family mostly flew Delta Air Lines.

Its good customer service and usually on-time flights have kept me as a fan of the airline well into adulthood.

However, Delta recently changed its SkyMiles program to rely on money spent rather than miles flown — pointing to a desire to attract more high-dollar travelers. This has made loyalty less important to me.

I've since spent more time on mainline rival American Airlines, which has a huge operation out of the New York City airports I now live by. While it used to disappoint, I'm slowly becoming a fan.

To compare American to my old favorite, I recently flew back-to-back on both airlines in domestic economy class. I found them to be different but the same, so I'd book either again if the price is right.

My American and Delta flights journeyed between New York's LaGuardia Airport and Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport in Texas.

I booked back-to-back flights to and from a recent work trip in May. The outbound flight lasted about four hours, and the return flight was about three and a half hours.

The Delta outbound was on an Airbus A220, while the American return was on a Boeing 737-800.

The Airbus plane is smaller than the 737, but both represent the standard cabin equipped onto most of each airline's respective narrowbody fleets.

According to Delta, its narrowbody fleet boasts over 161,000 seatback screens across 850 aircraft, with the TVs being added to Airbus A319s, Airbus A320s, and Boeing 737-800s by the end of this summer.

American, meanwhile, has retrofitted many of its narrowbody Airbus and Boeing planes with uniform cabins. Known as "Project Oasis," this simplifies the fleet, and the extra seats generate more revenue — though legroom was reduced as a result.

Each ticket was basic economy with a random seat to keep things as apples-to-apples as possible. I ended up in the middle seat on both.

I paid as little as possible for both flights, meaning I didn't add on bags or seats and only brought a carry-on. The Delta flight was about $180, while the American flight was about $160.

Despite my unfortunate luck, both 30-inch-pitch seats were plenty spacious enough for my 5'3" self. Delta's seat was wider.

I'm short and small, so I fit into most airline seats — even the cramped 28-inch-pitch ones on Spirit and Frontier.

Still, the 30 inches may be cramped for taller travelers and I recommend upgrading to American or Delta's respective extra-legroom seats.

Some flyers may also consider that American's 737's seat width is more than an inch slimmer than Delta's A220, though this didn't bother me.

Other seat similarities included a sturdy tray table, adjustable headrests, power ports, and a seatback pocket.

The mesh pocket on American was more aesthetically pleasing, but Delta's was bigger.

I also liked that both airlines had the outlet under the seat in front as it's easier to reach than when it's located under my own seat.

The padding on my American and Delta flights was comparable, as well as the overall inflight service and reliability.

Both of the flights departed perfectly on time, and I got the expected drink and snack.

While I expect that of Delta, American's reliability left me stranded overnight in Colombia in 2021 after a last-minute flight cancellation, with no information about why.

That experience left a sour taste in my mouth, but American has slowly earned back my trust. Since the fiasco, my flights have been on time, and new technologies like the customer service chat box have helped with communication.

I also particularly liked the full-sized window in the rear lavatory of Delta's A220.

The aft lavatory is exclusive to Delta's A220. The other US operators flying the A220 — JetBlue Airways and Breeze Airways — do not have the unique "loo with a view."

Besides the window, there were two other key differences between the mainline competitors: inflight entertainment and WiFi access.

Seatback screens and fast WiFi are becoming the norm on mainline narrowbody aircraft in the US as airlines continue to spruce up the inflight experience.

However, American and Delta have different strategies for implementing these two key amenities.

Most people I've talked to say they prefer the seatback screens common on Delta's jets — but I like prefer the tablet holder on American.

American saves weight — and therefore, costs — by installing tablet holders on the seatback rather than screens. The holders can be used to stream American's IFE to a personal device.

Some people prefer the convenience of Delta's already-installed screen, which would be handy if I forgot my tablet or didn't pre-download any content.

When I travel, I bring my own pre-downloaded content and like the holder's viewing angle better than propping my tablet on the tray table.

I pretty much only watch shows like Survivor, Big Brother, House of Villians, or any other competition reality show.

These aren't widely available on aircraft, especially not any current seasons. So I like that I can pre-download my shows and watch them on the actual seatback.

For WiFi, Delta had an entirely free option available to SkyMiles members. American's complimentary option was only 20 minutes.

Delta offers free and paid inflight WiFi options on more than 650 domestic narrowbody planes, including free sessions to SkyMiles members and eligible T-Mobile customers.

American also offers the T-Mobile option and a new complimentary one, though the latter is ad-based and only for a short duration.

The strategy is likely to show people what the WiFi is like and entice them to buy a flight pass, but the up-to-$20 price for internet on my American flight may be a little steep for some travelers.

However, my T-Mobile phone number gives me free and unlimited WiFi on both airlines. It's typically fast and reliable regardless of carrier.

American's WiFi was more reliable on this roundtrip journey, with Delta's cutting out on two separate occasions for about 30 minutes.

To be fair, internet connectivity on planes is always at risk of being choppy due to uncontrollable factors like weather, and I've had the WiFi cut on American, too.

My solution is to just try to avoid working on things that require the internet when I'm flying.

Considering I use T-Mobile WiFi and always bring my tablet to watch shows, neither of the airlines' internet nor IFE setups is a dealbreaker for me.

With my T-Mobile phone number, Kindle Fire, and charging cables, I can work or be entertained regardless of whether I fly American or Delta.

I prefer American's IFE setup, but its economy comfort is so comparable to Delta's that I care more about price and timing.

When I fly, I just want a comfortable seat and somewhere to watch my shows, whether it's a tablet holder or a tray table.

This means I typically will avoid low-cost carriers like Spirit or Frontier unless the price is really enticing. Though, sometimes, if the route is nonstop, the departure time is comparable to a mainline, and the flight is less than two hours long, I'll suck it up to save a buck.

There's also reliability to consider, but American didn't trail far behind Delta in terms of on-time performance in 2023, and it actually beat United.

According to Cirium's annual report, American had an on-time rate of 80.6% in 2023 — an improvement from about 78% in 2022.

Delta's was at 84.6% in 2023, up 1% from the year prior. United was at about 80% last year, down from about 80.5% in 2022, per Cirium.

These days, I'm looking for the most convenient routing, regardless of carrier, and booking the one with the best timing and fare ratio.

For where I need to go, Delta has the most convenient network out of my nearby New York City airports. However, I've noticed the fares are commonly more expensive than American.

If the same nonstop route is cheaper on American, I'll book it.

However, if Delta is $200 more, for example, but it operates the sole nonstop that gets me to my destination several hours earlier than a one-stop on a competitor, then that's a no-brainer for me.

Some may say I'm missing out on the glamour of airline status, but it's nice not to worry about that loyalty anymore.

Having status on an airline is definitely beneficial, from the free checked bags and inflight drinks to the possibility of upgrades to business or first-class. But I don't mind economy and only travel with a carry-on.

For now, I'm happy to just airline hop if it saves me time or money.

• Carnival Cruise Line is well known for its relatively affordable fares.
• But my recent Carnival Firenze cruise was filled with enticing pay-to-play amenities.
• Even the complimentary venues had up-charged options, making it easy for travelers to blow past their budget.

If you aren't careful, your Carnival cruise could quickly become as expensive as an Oceania one.

Peruse any of the "US' most budget-friendly cruise lines" lists, and you're sure to find Carnival somewhere near the top. In 2024, its most affordable itinerary is $164 per person for a four-night sailing from Miami — more than $20 cheaper than Royal Caribbean and Norwegian's least expensive ones.

That's about $40 a day for food, accommodations, onboard entertainment, and the ability to see several destinations in one vacation.

Sounds like a steal, right?

Well, not quite.

You'll be met with a flurry of tempting up-charged amenities the moment you board Carnival's ships. So, if you're prone to giving into these little luxuries, you can kiss your budget goodbye.

I went on my first Carnival cruise in mid-May: a four-night sailing from Long Beach, California, on Carnival Firenze.

I paid $735 for a solo interior cabin, including optional gratuities.

If that sounds relatively expensive, you'd be right. Carnival Firenze is the company's latest vessel, and newer cruise ships generally command a pricing premium.

It's also worth noting that I had booked it less than 10 days before embarkation. Oops.

I thought I knew what to expect when it came to the cruise industry's 'pay-to-play' game.

Mass-market cruise lines have been increasingly slapping fees on on-board amenities and activities. I knew excesses like alcohol, WiFi, and specialty dining would cost extra, as is typical across the industry.

The only one I fell for was WiFi, of which the premium package cost me $85 for all four nights. I was there for work, after all.

Cocktails were generally about $13, while beers and seltzers were about $9 each. Specialty restaurants like teppanyaki and Italian cost about $40 per person, while the steakhouse was $49.

None of these were surprising. Even premium cruise lines charge extra for higher-end restaurants and beverages.

But on Carnival, it felt like almost everything beyond the bare minimum carried an additional fee.

Even complimentary dining venues dangled tempting dollar sign-afflicted dishes — including the buffet, where guests had to pay for chicken wings.

Want an empanada? The Empanadas and Pie kiosk sold them for $1.50 apiece.

Craving a lobster roll? The dinnertime Seafood Shack booth (which otherwise has free breakfast and lunch options) sells one for $18.

Looking for some pizza? You could grab a free pepperoni slice at the pizza stand — or pay $6 for the fancier Korean barbecue steak pie.

That darn dollar sign symbol tormented me morning to night, on and off the ship.

I had been craving a juice for breakfast. Too bad it was $5 (in the complimentary main dining room, no less).

I would've loved some popcorn during the evening movie showings. A bag costs $4.

During our second stop in Ensenada, Mexico, I briefly considered taking the shuttle from the port to downtown. However, that would've been another $4.

But the most egregious 'incident' came during afternoon tea.

The daily schedule denoted pay-to-play events with a small dollar sign symbol. "Tea Time" didn't have one, so off I scurried, excited for some free mid-afternoon caffeine and sweet treats.

You can probably guess where this story is headed.

After I took my seat, a waitperson arrived at my table with an organized box of tea bags, giving me just enough time to review my options before announcing they were $1.50 each. On principle, I declined.

A few minutes later, he returned to my table to let me know that he did, in fact, have some free options stashed behind the up-charged bags. They were the same as those available in the buffet: Lipton and Bigelow's green tea.

During breakfast, one of the servers joked that my croissant and Lipton tea would cost $20 each.

I knew he was kidding, but for a split second, I was worried he wasn't. At that point, I expected almost everything I wanted to come with a price tag.

Carnival, I get it. Get that bag, sis!

But not being immediately upfront about the $1.50 tea bag and otherwise free options felt unecessarily deceitful.

In the company's defense, not everything had a price tag. Fun activities like the mini-golf course, waterslides, and fear-of-height-inducing ropes course were complimentary and great for forgetting how annoyed I was about "tea gate."

Carnival is just following the industry trend.

There's a reason onboard spending has skyrocketed over the last year. Mass-market cruise lines have been increasingly adopting a model reminiscent of budget airlines: offer a low base fare and present a slew of irresistible amenities at an additional price.

Competitors like Norwegian and Royal Caribbean are repeat offenders, too.

On Norwegian Prima, mini-golf costs $10 per person, while the VR arcade sets guests back $29 for one hour.

On Royal Caribbean's Icon of the Seas, mini-golf is free! But walk slow if you decide to spend money on the ship's part-agility, part-ziplining course. It costs $49 to participate — and could be completed in a minute or so.

So yes, going on an ultra-cheap Carnival cruise is possible if you’re like me, stubbornly unwilling to spend extra.

But if you're a pushover who easily gives into temptation, be sure to develop a backbone before you cruise with Carnival.

If you don't, mai tais and movie popcorn costs could add up quicker than expected.

• Arielle Francois moved from the Miami metropolitan area to Dallas for a job.
• She's been living in Dallas since 2022; she talked to BI about how it compares to living in Florida.
• She thinks it's more affordable than being in South Florida for someone her age.

Arielle Francois, 24, would tell her past self it's fine to be nervous about making the move from South Florida to Dallas.

That move at the start of 2022 came with the unknown of what her "first big girl job" would be like. Francois would also have to figure out rent and finances, how to meet people, and everything else needed to thrive in a city and state she hadn't been to before.

"There was no initial excitement or happiness at all just because it was an unknown city to me," Francois told Business Insider.

She had been living with family in the Miami metropolitan area; she also attended college in Florida. Francois moved to Florida from Haiti because of the earthquake in 2010.

Fast-forwarding to the end of 2021, she had to consider moving for a job offer to take part in a program at PMG that required the relocation to Texas. She told BI she only had a short time "to find somewhere to stay, to learn about Dallas, to even figure out if I wanted to move to Dallas."

Francois studied criminal justice but changed interests toward the end of college after getting a taste of digital marketing work as a college side hustle. "The program is specifically designed for post-grad students who are looking to kick-start their career in digital marketing," she said.

After successfully completing the program, she works as a digital marketer on the influencer marketing team at PMG.

Francois is among the many people who moved to the Dallas metro area in 2022. Nearly 91,600 more people moved in than out of the Dallas area from elsewhere in the US during the period of July 1, 2021, and June 30, 2022, data from the Census Bureau showed.

"I find Dallas is up and coming," Francois said.

Francois sees several positives to living in Dallas, including more visibility and opportunities as a content creator. With more and more Gen Zers moving into full-time employment while baby boomers enter retirement or leave behind full-time jobs, Francois talked to BI about advice for anyone uprooting their lives to move somewhere new.

Leveraging social media

Francois advised people who are moving to make sure they do their research. She has also found social media can be useful for moving — not only to see what life is like in the place you are heading to but as a way to reach out to people.

For instance, Francois said she used Smart City to find a place to live. She said it's a service where you connect with a "locator to help you find the apartment that you want in your desired location." Francois said she learned about this "through a Dallas local I reached out to on social media while doing my research. This highlights the importance of seeking advice from locals and leveraging social media during the moving process."

"I feel like social media is the perfect place for you to discover a city because you have a ton of content creators who are creating amazing content about the good, the bad, pretty, the ugly about the city," she said.

Beyond scrolling through social media posts and apartment sites, there are also rent and costs to think about.

"I recommend budgeting and saving as much as possible — your future self will appreciate it," she said for other Gen Zers living on their own for the first time. She added that can include not spending too much on furniture and thrifting items.

Moving to a new city can also mean figuring out how to make friends. Francois said not to forget others may be new to the area and seeking new friends.

"Making friends can be intimidating, but there are often many social groups on Facebook or platforms like The Nudge that organize social events and provide lists of activities in your city," she told BI. "Social media is also a great way to meet new people and discover local events."

How her life in Dallas compares to Florida

"I think I would definitely say that my favorite part about the city is how helpful and open everyone is," Francois said about Dallas.

She said going out with her colleagues is one of her favorite things to do in the area. For instance, she went to her first-ever baseball game with her coworkers.

Francois has also found Dallas a good city to live in as a content creator compared to Miami. "The visibility I got in South Florida was very limited just because there were so many other creatives in terms of models and artists and content creators," she said.

Meanwhile, in Dallas, she feels she gets more visibility as a creator, "which has actually resulted in much more opportunities for me here," she said. "For example, I get invited to a ton of Dallas creator events with some brands that I personally use, and I just actually feel like a creator here just because I get that visibility as a creator, and so I'm treated like I'm a creator."

Additionally, Francois said she feels it's more affordable to live in Dallas than South Florida for someone her age. According to Zillow data at the time of reporting, the median rent for a one-bedroom property is $2,700 in Miami and around $1,400 in Dallas.

Francois, who hasn't had roommates while living in Dallas, paid nearly $1,600 a month in rent, including some fees, for her first apartment in the city. She moved earlier this year to a new building, where she pays over $1,800 a month.

She said she has "everything you could possibly need," at her current place. "To me, it was worth the increase in rent, but I know not everyone would necessarily agree."

Additionally, she finds that Dallas is quieter than Miami. "I remember when I lived there, I would say, 'I live where you vacation,'" Francois said.

"If you want to party, you go to Florida, whereas I don't think if you want to party, you would think of Dallas as the go-to city for that," Francois said. "And I'm totally OK with living somewhere like that because of where I'm at mentally, professionally, and all of that."

While she does miss being close to the beach, a personal pro for her of living in Dallas is seeing the differences in seasons and the changing weather.

"Because I grew up in the Caribbean islands, I'm very used to sunny weather and just basically summer weather all year long," Francois said. "So, I actually like that in Dallas I'm able to see the seasons change."

She also misses the Haitian community in Florida and says that if she's craving Haitian food, she won't really find it in Dallas.

"Because South Florida is so close to Haiti, you'll find a huge population of Haitians in South Florida," she said. "So when I moved to Florida, I didn't feel like I was too far away from home because there were so many Haitian restaurants, so many Haitian churches. There's even Little Haiti in South Florida. So, Haitian culture is very present there."

Given the mix of things she misses about South Florida and the perks of being in Dallas, Francois said she would tell her past self who was getting ready to move that, "It's normal to be nervous because change is uncomfortable" and it's an uneasy feeling to experience this new chapter in life alone.

"It's fine to feel how you feel, but if only you knew what was on the other side of all of that fear and anxiety, you would quickly wipe your tears and get to packing," she said.

Have you moved out of Florida or moved to Texas? Share your moving experience with this reporter at mhoff@businessinsider.com.

• Jace Mattinson returned to work after finding early retirement unfulfilling and repetitive.
• He initially retired at 32 after selling a lumber company but wanted to return to the office.
• Mattinson aims to balance work, family, and hobbies using a "life happiness index" as a guide.

Jace Mattinson, 36, has already determined that retirement is overrated. Four years ago, he tried it out for eight months, then realized he felt like he was throwing away a decade of hard work and low-sleep nights.

When he started his financial independence journey, he thought retirement would be 30 years out. But at 32, he had enough to never work at an office again. However, he said, the appeal of retirement, from playing golf to relaxing on a boat, got stale fast.

He wanted to get back into the workforce and return to an executive position, which brought him much more fulfillment. He also wanted to be a role model for his kids, who saw their dad as someone motivated less by money and more by genuine passion.

So he did just that, working slightly fewer hours but maintaining a strong balance between work, family, and hobbies. It's all part of his "life happiness index" that drives his financial and life decisions.

"I decided that retirement in the traditional sense was not something that is going to happen for myself anytime soon," Mattinson told Business Insider.

Mattinson is one of many members of the FIRE community — financial independence, retire early — who has gravitated away from the "RE" part of the acronym. Some previously told BI that after testing out retirement, they felt directionless or bored, itching to return to the workforce. Some wanted to resume their past jobs, while others looked to lower-stress roles like nonprofit or charity work.

Retiring early, but not for long

Mattinson started his career at PwC as an associate in Dallas making $52,000 a year after graduating from Brigham Young University. He quickly rose the ranks at an outsourced accounting firm making about $150,000, where he became a partner and relocated from Dallas to Austin.

One of his clients worked in the lumber building material hardware distribution space, and at 27, he took over a lumber company which was struggling. At this time, he was making in the mid-six figures, putting much of that money into various retirement and investment accounts.

After working long weeks, he sold the company at 32 for seven figures and reached the amount he needed to retire comfortably while providing for his five kids. He said he was living on just $30,000 to $40,000 a year, as most of his earnings went to maxing out his retirement accounts and investing in real estate.

"I skipped over five years like it was nothing, but if you ask my wife, there were some extremely tough years," he said. "I was gone a few nights a week at a minimum. I had operations all over Texas and Oklahoma. And I spent a lot of time trying to build up this company."

During this time, he acquired a real estate portfolio in Texas, taking advantage of house hacking and other strategies to have extra passive income.

He said he was drained after years of nearly nonstop work and figured that he would never have this kind of freedom again after selling the company. He took a "mini-retirement" that included golfing as much as four times a week, skiing, playing basketball, and boating.

A few months in, he realized his hobbies were getting repetitive and boring. He felt disengaged from his work and social communities, and a part of him felt his quick rise up the corporate ladder was being neglected. He wasn't worried about money, though, as he had plenty in investments and hadn't yet deployed much of the large cash infusion from the company's sale.

"I didn't think I was going to close up shop forever, but it was like, maybe I'll take a bunch of time off," Mattinson said. "But after about eight months of that mini-retirement, I decided that I had way too much time on my hands to not be engaged."

He didn't view the mini-retirement as a complete mistake, as it helped him recharge and reconsider his values. But he eventually noticed he wasn't "wired" to relax for long periods, and he wanted to pursue his passions of growing his investments and real estate portfolio — or, in other words, work.

"I had this mindset shift of, I'm pretty young, and I don't want to essentially be retired," Mattinson said. "I didn't want my kids growing up thinking that daddy worked really hard at one point, but now he hangs out and goes golfing all the time."

Returning to work

He decided to find new challenges in the lumber distribution space, which he said was much more fulfilling than doing his hobbies every day. He's now an executive at a lumber building materials company doing another nationwide roll-up.

He continues to invest in franchises and real estate and has had a podcast for seven years. He has a three-bucket investment strategy of investing in the market, business, and real estate.

He recently shifted from a scarcity mindset of wanting to save and DIY everything to an abundance mindset of investing more in what matters and splurging on things that make life easier. He still enjoys yard work but pays for house cleaning or laundry.

He keeps track of a "life happiness index," which he said is highest when he balances his work with family and hobbies. He tries to maximize this index by pursuing work in areas such as investment and distribution. He considered switching to charity work or other lower-stress options, though he said the best use of his talents, from an impact standpoint, was returning to the field he left.

As part of this, he's less on top of his family's budget than he used to be, spending roughly what he thinks they should but no longer tracking every dollar. He's also been putting aside money for community improvement projects that could benefit others long-term.

"I don't try to nickel and dime myself if it doesn't make me happy," he said. "I don't want to be a billionaire by any stretch of the imagination, but there are things that I would like to do after I've shifted my mind. I would love to create a park one day, for example, in my area that has all different equipment."

He schedules one-on-one time with his kids, plays basketball twice a week, and makes time for tennis or golf with friends, all of which take precedence in his schedule.

When considering his "final" retirement, he said he plans to work as long as he enjoys it. While he doesn't want to be a "full-time parent" and needs work to keep him going, he's increasingly trying to pick up and drop off his kids at school and attend their sporting events.

"As long as I'm able to continue to take enough vacations, travel, do some of the things that I've always liked doing locally, and do some of my hobbies a few times a year, I'm in a pretty good spot," he said.

Are you part of the FIRE movement or living by some of its principles? Reach out to this reporter at nsheidlower@businessinsider.com.

• Tesla is preparing for a showdown between some big investment firms and individual shareholders on June 13.
• Several institutional investors have indicated they plan to vote against Elon Musk's pay plan.
• Retail investors, who hold 44% of Tesla stock, could sway the vote.

Tesla is setting the stage for a battle between some vocal institutional investors and some of Elon Musk's biggest supporters.

The two sides appear ready to face off at Tesla's annual shareholder meeting on June 13. Over the past few weeks, several investment firms have urged shareholders to vote against the proposed pay package for Musk, which was valued at $55 billion when it was struck down by a Delaware judge earlier this year.

The executive pay plan, which was first approved in 2018, is centered on a series of goalposts around Tesla's financial growth. The plan involves a 10-year grant of 12 tranches of stock options that are vested when Tesla hits specific targets. When the company hits each milestone, Musk gets stock equal to 1% of outstanding shares at the time of the grant. Tesla said it hit all of the 12 targets as of 2023.

The Delaware judge that voided the compensation plan in January argued that Musk had undue influence over the package and its approval because of his close ties to several board members, resulting in an "unfair price."

Meanwhile, Tesla has argued that the pay package is both fair and necessary to maintain Musk's focus on the car company. In a series of advertisements and messages to shareholders ahead of the June shareholder vote, Tesla has continued to argue that the plan is "critical to the future success of Tesla" and a matter of properly compensating Musk for his work over the past six years.

And some of Musk's most devout fans, many of which count themselves as investors, have begun to spread the same message. Tesla has even shared screenshots of some of its fans' tweets about voting in some of its filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including a video from @TeslaBoomerMama that includes step-by-step instructions on how to vote in the annual meeting.

In some ways, Tesla has made retail investors like @TeslaBoomerMama an influencer of sorts, according to a report from The Information. Over the past few weeks, Tesla retail investors have been raising a rallying cry on social media, and even targeting investors like Leo Koguan, one of Tesla's largest individual shareholders, who has expressed his intentions to vote against the proposal.

Tesla's retail investors hold a notable level of power at the company. Individual investors hold a large portion of Tesla stock, accounting for about 44% of Tesla shares, per S&P Global Market Intelligence data quoted by Reuters. That's the highest percentage out of the 10 largest companies in the S&P 500, according to Reuters. So while institutions like CalPERS — which holds about 9.5 million Tesla shares, according to Bloomberg — have said they plan to vote against the proposal, they might be faced with a large number of individual investors canceling out their votes.

Adam Jonas, head of Morgan Stanley's auto and space research, said in an analyst note from Friday that, based on a survey of 109 respondents, Morgan Stanley expects Musk's pay package to be met with 57% approval.

Ultimately, the issue comes down to whether individual investors will show out for the vote. Anat Alon-Beck, a corporate law expert out of Case Western Reserve University, told Business Insider that it's uncommon for individual investors to put in the effort to cast a vote.

"I'd say 90% of retail investors throw out those proxy cards," Alon-Beck said. "I'd be shocked if a large number of them actually vote and mail it back."

For its part, Tesla has been working overtime to distribute material on how to vote, providing QR codes and online options in addition to mail-in votes. On Tuesday, the company even kicked off a raffle, offering shareholders who could provide proof that they'd voted the chance for a special tour of the Texas gigafactory alongside Musk.

The Tesla CEO has also promoted the proposal and criticized institutional investors who have spoken out against the pay plan. He even threatened to take his work with AI outside of Tesla if he is unable to secure additional voting shares.

A spokesperson for Tesla did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Ahead of the June 13 shareholder meeting, shareholders will be asked to vote on several other proposals in addition to Musk's pay package. The company is also asking investors to vote on whether to move Tesla's state of incorporation from Delaware to Texas and a separate proposal to reelect Tesla board members Kimbal Musk and Murdoch.

For Musk, whose net worth is largely tied to his Tesla shares, the stakes couldn't be higher.

Do you work for Tesla or have a tip? Reach out to the reporter via a non-work email and device at gkay@businessinsider.com or 248-894-6012.

• Dania Swails found her résumé wasn't being read by applicant-tracking systems.
• Swails, who's worked in finance, revamped her résumé to make it easier to get through.
• She simplified her résumé format and has started to get more callbacks for job applications.

Dania Swails, 28, has worked in finance and is looking for another job in the industry after leaving her last role. She has faced numerous rejections to jobs she's applied for. A recruiter suggested she rework her résumé so an applicant-tracking system might more easily read it.

I have a bachelor's degree in sports management. I graduated in 2019, and the pandemic started in March 2020. So, some of the job offers I had — and the prospects I had — weren't starting until the next season, but my opportunities went away because of the pandemic.

I had a friend who was a stockbroker. She said, "Hey, my job will train you to become a broker if that's something you're interested in." At the time, I just needed a job. So, I became a broker.

I got into it, and I just really liked it. I really liked finance. My dad works in finance; he does taxes and investing. He's told me my whole life that I need to look into finance. When I started in the industry, my dad and I used to study every night for my Series 7 exam, which I passed.

After working as a broker, I was recruited to be an equity trader. I really got into data and trends research when I was working at that job. I was there for two years, and then I got laid off.

After I got laid off, I went on LinkedIn and found a job as an analyst. It was my first time not working with clients. I worked directly for the bank. I did like being an analyst; I just didn't like the company.

I felt like, "Well, I've been in finance for four years. I've managed these accounts. I've done this. I haven't had a problem having a job." So, at the end of January, I thought, "I'm burned out from this employer. I'll just leave. I'm sure I can find something else." That didn't happen.

When I was a broker — a first-year broker — it felt like I was getting recruited on LinkedIn every day. That's how I got that job as an equity trader. And, even when I was laid off, I was only out of work for three weeks, and I was right back at work at a new job.

But now, it's months later, and I still don't have a role. This has been the hardest it's ever been. I've never had an experience like this. LinkedIn had always been my best friend, but now it's my worst enemy — it's like a shift happened.

Revamping my résumé

I'd been told my résumé is impressive. I'd also been told it's too long, it's too short, it's too vague, and you need to change the formatting. I had my education and my skills on the side, along with my contact information. I had a template that was pretty fancy looking. I'd always used it, and I always thought that it had caught the recruiter's eye. But I just haven't been having much luck. So, I've been changing my résumé — adding things, taking things off.

There would be jobs where I met every requirement, and I was getting rejected, getting rejected, getting rejected. When I was an equity trader, I needed three to five years of experience, but they recruited me, and I only had a year and a half of experience. So, I was able to get into a higher role. And then, I became an analyst who needed a bit more experience than I had. But they said in the interview that they liked where my head was at, and so I got hired.

After I left my last job, I applied for roles where I didn't meet all the requirements, but I figured I could talk about my experience. I was getting automatically rejected, so I decided to apply only for jobs where I met every qualification. And I was still getting rejected.

I've been here in Cincinnati now for four years. I like it but would also like to go somewhere else — maybe Miami, Philly, D.C., or Chicago. I was applying for jobs and taking my address off my résumé so it wouldn't flag in the system. I was still not getting anything.

Then, a recruiter I'd been working with said my résumé could be getting caught in applicant-tracking systems. She said I should put it through a system that will see if it flags when you compare it to a certain job description.

When I submitted my résumé and job description through this system, I was surprised by the results. It said I had a low chance of getting the job. My résumé had dashes, which could have been throwing it off because an ATS sometimes doesn't recognize dashes. I also had more than 32 characters in the file name, and I was told that wasn't good, so I shortened that.

The recruiter said the formatting and template I used weren't reading, and the ATS wasn't picking up my key skills or education. I was also told that if it's over one page, but definitely two, it will kick it out automatically.

I've had to revamp my résumé completely. I made it a simple document — basic black and white. Instead of having separate columns, it's straight up and down and in chronological order. It hasn't been that long, but I have had two callbacks since I updated it.

I was glad to have the new résumé, but it also made me sad, honestly, because I feel like I missed out on many jobs — especially ones that I really wanted.

I said, "Oh, yeah, I definitely will qualify for this." I'd set my LinkedIn filters: I would apply for jobs that just opened in the past 24 hours with under 10 applicants. It's like, "OK, this only has three applicants. I meet all the requirements besides a bachelor's degree in finance." I have the required experience. Then, my résumé was automatically rejected.

Where I go from here

In the end, I will probably keep both versions of my résumé. I want to have one that stands out when a person actually looks at it — that jumps out against all the other black-and-white, simpler résumés. And then I'll have the résumé I enter in the system for the ATS.

All of this just makes me feel like, what is the point of having recruiters if you're going to have a system that flags everything? I get it from an HR standpoint. If I were a recruiter, I would not want to go through 5,000 applications. However, being someone who's job-seeking, this system doesn't work.

At my last job, my mental health was just deteriorating. But I have a new source of stress now. Part of me feels like I'm being punished for not staying at my job — like I stuck my neck out too far. I wasn't arrogant when I left, but I did have the mindset that I could find something else because I have experience and I have a degree. And in the past, I was always getting recruited.

When you've been unemployed for four months, you feel like maybe you were too arrogant. Maybe I wasn't humble enough. Maybe I should have stuck it out. Maybe I should have just stayed until there was something else. You have all these scenarios that go through your head when you're just not getting anything. It is very demoralizing.

Now, when I apply, it often feels like it's just about what scans in the system. If you can get through the system, then you can prove yourself or have someone take a chance on you. But you have to get through the system first.

• I tracked all the ads I saw in a day and counted over 130.
• Some ad settings can be adjusted, but control over frequency remains limited across many platforms.
• I didn't mind most ads because they either catered to my interests or were easy to tune out.

Ads have become so embedded in everyday activities and media consumption that you may not even notice how often you run into them.

When my editor asked me to track all the ads I saw in a day, I wasn't sure how it would go. Prior to this experiment, I hadn't paid close attention to how often an ad or sponsored content floated before my eyes.

While the words "sponsored" may show up on a video or image you scroll past on social media, the font is often small and if the content is successfully targeting you, you may not even notice.

I missed a few ads during this process, especially on sites where I was focused on getting the answer I was searching for. But based on what I did catch, I spotted over 130 ads in a single day.

Let's dive in.

Your settings can (sometimes) make a difference

The type of ads you receive may be adjustable in your settings. But for most platforms, you won't be able to control how many you see.

To personalize Google ads, for example, you can go to "My Ad Center" and opt to turn personalized ads on or off in the top-right corner. If you turn them on, Google will use the information it collects about you to give you more personalized ads. That means your activity on Google sites and apps will be saved in your Google Account and information from your account, like your age, will also be used.

I decided to keep personalized ads off for Google because that's how I usually have it. This resulted in me sometimes missing ads on my screen. I'm so used to seeing random photos and brand names in the corners and sides of my screen that my eyes glazed over some of them. It drew a sharp contrast to my experience with social media ads, which are fully personalized to my activity on and off-site and often pull my attention.

When it comes to social media, you don't have as much of a choice — although some do let you pay to remove or decrease ads. Facebook now offers a paid version in the EU for people who prefer an ad-free experience, YouTube lets you pay for Premium to remove them, and Elon Musk's X says paying for X Premium+ means no ads in your For You or Following feeds.

But TikTok, for example, says on its website that "you will always see ads based on what you do on TikTok." But you can provide feedback on an ad if you're not interested in it. Other social media sites have similar ad policies.

With TikTok, Instagram, and most apps that you download on your phone, you can turn off ad-tracking across companies and websites in your privacy settings.

My social media feeds were filled with ads

I spent about two and a half hours on Instagram on the day of this experiment — and I saw about 75 ads.

I probably never went through more than four posts at a time without being interrupted by an ad. But most of the ads were similar to content I regularly engage with in my explore feed or online.

I find ads with multiple products and links particularly effective because it's easy to engage with them and find out pricing or other details. I also loved seeing sponsored food content because it gave me ideas of where to go out to eat.

None of the ads resulted in me purchasing any items, but if I continue to see interesting ads in my price range for weeks at a time, it may eventually influence my buying patterns.

For TikTok, the ads were even less noticeable because the app is so casual. For example, I would start watching a woman wipe down her counters and then see Mr. Clean at the end of the video before noticing the "sponsored" label at the bottom. I also found some of the TikTok ads interesting or helpful.

I didn't engage at all with internet ads

I tracked about 40 ads online, but since they weren't personalized to my interests I sometimes didn't notice them. I saw a range of ads from USPS to T-Mobile, to random shows on streaming services that I had no interest in.

Sometimes, they were images, and other times, they were full videos. I also saw a couple of ads on YouTube videos but usually skipped after a few seconds, so I didn't fully engage with those either.

Miscellaneous ads

I use the language-learning app Duolingo every day and those are the only ads I truly dread. The ads are animated with sound and I sometimes put my phone down and walk away because of how painful it feels to watch.

I also saw about 10 ads in real life on the subway on my way to and from work. By the end of the day, I noticed these less, but in general, they tend to stick out more than non-targeted ads on the internet.

I also receive several push notifications and ads over text every day. I counted about seven on the day of this experiment, including a push notification from Urban Outfitters about a flash sale, a text from CorePower Yoga for discounted class packs, and a push notification from Amazon about trending sunscreen.

Most of the ads don't bother me

My biggest takeaway from this experiment was that I really didn't mind the ads. In fact, sometimes I liked them.

I love online shopping and browsing — and I like that apps like Instagram curate content to my interests. I've discovered new brands on Instagram that I ended up ordering from because of ads. Even if it doesn't lead to a purchase, I enjoy seeing items that fall in my line of interest and inspire me to look at similar products.

The push notifications and the texts were probably the most annoying of all the ads I received, and I find myself deleting them on a daily basis.

I also don't follow too many influencers, but I immediately scrolled past content if I saw it labeled with "creator earns commission" or if it included a discount code in the caption because I'm not interested in paid content from someone I follow for enjoyment.

As far as Duolingo's ads go, yes, I find them annoying — but I also wouldn't pay $12.99 per month to get rid of them.

It's clear that we're seeing more and more ads on our phones and TV screens — Netflix and Amazon recently introduced ads to their streaming services, although both offer ad-free options for an extra cost.

Luckily, I'm on my roommate's plan for Netflix, and my family has an Amazon and Spotify subscription, so I don't have to deal with these. I sometimes watch Hulu shows and the ads are annoying, but I usually walk away if an ad comes on.

For me, watching or listening to an ad is the most frustrating, and I would definitely be bothered if I was constantly interrupted by them. When I was growing up, I found radio commercials unbearable, and I might have paid for an ad-free option if I still had to go through those several-minute interruptions.

But the honest answer is I'm used to ads by now, and even find some genuinely interesting. We're living in an advertising world — and if I have to deal with sponsored content for clothing brands I like while scrolling on social media — then so be it.